COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


HX64099636 
QP45.L524  1896   Does  science  need  se 


RECAP 


♦••Dees  science  need  secrecy? 
QPU5   L52i4   1596 


mtl)eCtJpotllr»g0rk 

CoUegc  of  ^fjpsiicianjs!  anb  burgeons; 

ILibvavp 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons  (for  the  Medical  Heritage  Library  project) 


http://www.archive.org/details/doesscienceneedsOOIeff 


FIFTH    TBOUSAKb. 


jDoes  Science  need  Secrecy? 


A  REPLY  TO  PROF.  PORTER  AND  OTHERS 


OF    HARVARD    MEDICAL    SCHOOL. 


ALBERT   LEFFINGWELL,    M.  D., 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS. 
WITH    STATEMENT 

CONCERNING  VIVISECTION  BY  PROF.  W.  T.  PORTER, 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  "  BOSTON  TRANSCRIPT." 


PRO\^DENCE,   R.   I. 

1896. 

pa 


sf 


.    DOES  SCIENCE  NEED   SECRECY? 

j  

A  REPLY  TO  PROFESSOR   PORTER 
BY 

ALBERT    LEFFINGWELL,    M.  D. ,  M.  Sc. 

Formerly  Instructor  in  Physiology,  Poh-technic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


To  what  extent  cau  scientific  authority  be  implicitly  re- 
ceived as  the  foundation  of  belief  regarding  the  subject  of 
Vivisection?  It  is  certain  that  for  the  gi'eat  majority  of 
men  and  women,  all  statements  concerning  it  are  wholly 
beyond  the  possibility  of  verification  by  personal  experi- 
ence. Regarding  its  extent  or  its  methods,  its  pain  or  pain- 
lessness, its  utility  to  humanity  or  its  liability  to  abuse,  the 
world  bases  its  judgment,  not  upon  knowledge,  but  upon 
faith  in  the  accuracy,  the  impartiality,  the  sincerity  of  the 
men  who,  standing  within  the  temple  of  science,  know 
with  certainty  the  facts.  One  might  suppose  that  here  was 
the  welcome  opportunit}'^  to  demonstrate  that  science  can 
have  nothing  to  conceal ;  that  her  symbol  is  a  torch  and  not 
a  veil;  and  that  above  all  professional  preference  and  all 
partisan  zeal  stands  fidelity  to  accuracy,  and  the  love  of 
absolute  truth. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  my  purpose  in  this  paper  to  question 
the  wisdom  of  too  implicit  faith  ;  to  suggest  the  expediency 
of  doubt ;  and  to  point  out  why  statements  which  may  have 
the  support  of  high  scientific  authorities,  should  sometimes 
be  received  with  great  caution  and  careful  discrimination. 

And  yet  I  cannot  see  the  slightest  reason  why 
everything  that  concerns  a  scientific  method  or  purpose 
should  not  be  plainly  and  accurately  set  forth.     Generally 


The  substance  of  this  article  was  read  before  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the 
American  Humane  Association,  Minneapolis,  September  26,  1895,  and  was  printed 
in  the  Boston  Transcript,  September  28,  1895. 


this  is  the  case.  If  a  now  telescope  of  miusiial  jiower 
is  desired  by  a  university^,  "Wealth  is  not  asked  to  give 
it  in  order  that  wealth  may  be  increased  by  lunar  dis- 
coveries. When  an  astronomical  station  is  established  on 
the  Andes,  or  an  expedition  fitted  out  for  the  North  Pole, 
we  all  know  that  science  only  wall  be  the  gainer  —  not  com- 
merce or  art.  The  one  exception  to  an  almost  universal 
rule,  the  one  point  where  truth  is  veiled  in  obscurity  for  the 
public  eye,  is  when  we  come  to  the  vivisection  of  animals. 
Everywhere  else  science  seems  mindful  of  her  mission,  and 
asks  only  that  with  increasing  radiance  the  light  may  shine. 
Why  should  vivisection  offer  an  exception  to  this  ideal  ? 
That  it  seems  impossible  to  tell  the  whole  truth  about  it  is 
evident  to  every  person  who  undei-stands  the  facts.  The 
London  Lancet^  for  exampl'e,  recently  praised  a  biography 
by  Prof.  Mosso,  in  which  that  Italian  physiologist — as  the 
Lancet  remarked,  '•'■visely"  said, — "It  is  an  error  to  be- 
lieve that  experiments  can  be  performed  on  an  animal  w^hich 
feels."  A  few  weeks  ago  Professor  Mosso  sent  me  a 
manuscript  copy  of  this  same  essay,  in  which  the  sentence 
appears  in  slightly  different  form  :  "  It  is  an  error  to  think 
that  one  can  experiment  on  animals  that  have  not  lost  sen- 
sation ;  the  disturbance  produced  by  pain  in  the  organism 
of  the  animal  is  so  great  that  it  renders  useless  any  obser- 
vations." Now  here  is  the  utterance  of  a  man  of  science, 
trained  in  the  accuracy  of  the  laboratory,  occupying  one  of 
the  foremost  positions  in  Europe  as  a  physiologist,  and  his 
words,  stamped  with  the  approval  of  the  leading  Medical 
journal  of  England,  may  presently  be  floating  through 
the  American  press.  How  is  the  average  reader  to 
question  a  statement  like  this?  Nevertheless,  it  is  ab- 
solutely untrue.  One  can  perform  experiments  "on  an 
animal  which  feels  ;  "  they  have  been  done  by  the  thousand 
b}'  Bernard,  Magendie,  Mantagazza,  Brown-Sequard,  and 
others  ;  I  have  seen  scores  of  these  myself.  No  more  un- 
scientific sentence  was  ever  written  than  this  statement 
that  one  cannot  do  what  is  done  every  day  !  What  the  Ital- 
ian physiologist  might  truthfully  have  wi'itten  was  this  :  "  It 


is  ail  error  to  believe  that  physiological  experiments,  re- 
(puring  the  aid  of  delicate  iustrumeuts,  can  be  performed  up- 
on an  animal  -which  is  not  made  incapable  of  muscular 
effort."  If  he  had  then  gone  on  to  say  to  what  extent  he 
effects  this  b}"  means  of  anaesthetics,  to  what  extent  by  the 
use  of  narcotics,  and  to  what  extent  the  poison  of  curare  is 
administei-ed  to  paralyze  the  motor  nerves,  leaving  sensibil- 
itv  to  pain  untouched,  we  might  have  had  a  scientific  state- 
ment of  fact.  As  it  is,  we  have  —  what?  An  untruth  due 
to  ignorance?  An  error  due  to  carelessness?  I  do  not 
know.  Perhaps  the  physiologist  was  thinking  too  intently 
of  his  own  special  lines  of  inquiry  to  note  the  significance  of 
his  words  ;  but  what  shall  we  say  of  a  great  scientific  jour- 
nal in  England  which  could  quote  the  untruth  as  '■^loisely" 
said?  Is  even  verbal  inaccuracy  "wise"  w^here  science  is 
concerned  ? 

There  was  recently  given  out  by  Dr.  William  Townsend 
Porter,  the  assistant  professor  of  physiology  in  Harvard 
Medical  School  at  Boston,  one  of  the  most  astonishing  state- 
ments concerning  vivisection  that  ever  appeared  in  public 
print.  The  accuracy  of  Dr.  Porter's  statement  was  vouched 
for  by  five  other  leading  professors  in  the  same  institution — - 
Drs.  Henry  P.  Bowditch,  W.  T.  Councilman,  W.  F.  Whit- 
ney, C.  S.  Minot  and  H.  C.  Ernst ;  men  whose  scientific  rep- 
utation has  imparted  to  their  affirmations  an  immense 
authority  throughout  the  country.  They  put  forth  what  they 
asserted  was  a  "  plain  statement  of  the  whole  truth  "  con- 
cerning experiments  on  living  animals.  He,  perhaps,  is  a 
rash  man  who  ventures  to  question  any  assertion  supported 
by  names  like  these.  But  it  is  the  duty  of  every  lover  of 
scientific  truth  to  point  out  errors  wherever  he  may^  find  them, 
no  matter  how  shielded  by  authority  or  intrenched  by  public 
opinion ;  and  I  propose,  therefore,  to  make  use  of  this  pro- 
fessional manifesto  as  an  illustration  of  the  fallibility  of  even 
the  highest  scientific  expert  testimony.  I  think  it  can  be 
proven  that  although  this  declaration  rests  on  such  high  au- 
thority, it  is  nevertheless  permeated  with  mis-statement  and 
error ;  that  certain  assertions  have  been  made  without  due 


authority,  aud  certain  facts  of  pith  and  moment  most  singu- 
larly omitted,  or  most  carelessly  overlooked.  And  if  full 
reliance  cannot  be  given  to  assertions  made  by  men  of  the 
highest  fame,  then  the  whole  question  is  as  far  as  ever 
from  permanent  settlement. 

1.  In  the  first  place  Professor  Porter  does  not  W(>11  wlicn 
he  denies  (as  he  seems  to  do)  that  the  practice  of  experi- 
mentation upon  living  animals  has  ever  led  to  abuse. 
' '  The  cruelties  practiced  by  vivisectors  are  paraded  in  long 
lists,  with  the  assurance  that  they  are  taken  directly  from 
the  ])ublished  writings  of  the  vivisectors  themselves."  Well, 
is  this  assurance  untrue?  "These  long-drawn  lists  of 
atrocities  that  never  existed,"  —  can  these  be  the  words  of  a 
devotee  of  scientific  truth?  What  does  Professor  Porter 
mean  by  them?  What  othe*-  meaning  is  possible  for  the 
averao;e  reader  to  obtain  than  that  he  intended  to  deny  that 
atrocious  experiments  were  anything  but  a  myth?  "  Never 
existed  ?  "  AVhy ,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  but  especially 
abroad,  I  have  personally  seen  most  awful  cruelty  inflicted 
upon  living  animals,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating 
well-known  facts  or  theories  that  had  not  the  faintest  con- 
ceivable relation  to  the  treatment  and  cure  of  disease.  No 
facts  of  history  are  cai)able  of  more  certain  verification 
than  the  tortures  which  have  marked  the  vivisections  of 
Magendie  and  Bernard,  of  Bert  and  Mantagazza,  and  of  a 
host  of  their  imitators.  "  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  in- 
humanity may  be  found  in  persons  of  very  high  position  as 
physiologists;  we  have  seen  that  it  was  so  in  Magendie." 
This  is  the  language  of  the  report  on  vivisection  by  a  royal 
commission,  to  Avhich  is  attached  the  name  of  Professor 
Thomas  H.  Huxley.  Says  Dr.  Eliotsou,  in  his  work  on 
Himian  Physiology  (p.  448),  "I  cannot  refrain  from  ex- 
pressing my  horror  at  the  amount  of  torture  which  Dr.  Brachet 
inflicted.  /  luirdhi  think  Tcnowledqe  is  loorth  having  at  such 
a  purchase:'  But  take  American  testimony  on  this  point. 
Dr.  Henry  J.  Bigelow,  for  many  years  the  professoi-  of 
surgery  in  Harvard  Medical  School,  of  whom  Dr.  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes  has  said,  that  he  M^as  "  one  of   the  first,  if 


not  the  first,  of  American  surgeons,"  gave  the  annual  address 
before  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  a  few  years  ago. 
Therein  he  called  attention  to  the  "dreadful  sufferings  of 
dumb  animals,  the  cold-blooded  cruelties  now  more  and  more 
practiced  under  the  authority  of  science !  .  .  .  Watch 
the  students  at  a  vivisection.  It  is  the  blood  and  suffering, 
not  the  science  that  rivets  their  breathless  attention.  .  . 
It  is  dreadful  to  think  how  many  poor  animals  will  be  sulj- 
jected  to  excruciating  agony  as  one  medical  college  after 
another  becomes  penetrated  with  the  idea  that  vivisection  is 
a  part  of  modern  teaching  ;  that  to  hold  way  with  other  in- 
stitutions they,  too,  must  have  their  vivisector,  their  muti- 
lated dogs,  their  chamber  of  horrors  and  torture  to  advertise 
as  a  laboratory."  Does  any  one  imagine  that  Dr.  Bigelow 
here  refers  to  ' '  atrocities  that  never  existed  ?  " 

The  American  Academy  of  Medicine  includes  within 
its  membership  men  who  are  as  well  informed  as  any  in  the 
medical  profession.  At  the  sixteenth  annual  meeting,  held 
in  Washington  four  years  ago.  Dr.  Theophilus  Par^'in,  one 
of  the  professors  in  Jefferson  Medical  College  of  Phila- 
delphia, gave  the  Presidential  address.  Speaking  of  physi- 
ologists, he  says  that  there  are  some  "who  seem,  seeking 
useless  knowledge  ^  to  be  blind  to  the  writhing  agony  and  deaf 
to  the  cry  of  pain  of  their  victims,  and  who  have  been 
guilty  of  the  most  damnable  cruelties  without  the  denunci- 
ation by  the  public  that  their  wickedness  deserves  and  de- 
mands ;  these  criminals  are  not  confined  to  Germany  or 
France,  hut  may  he  found  in  our  own  countrij."  Is  this  the 
statement  of  an  "  agitator?"  Well,  President  Parvin  gradu- 
ated as  a  physician  some  years  before  Dr.  Porter  was  born, 
and  I  fancy  that  he  knows  of  what  he  speaks.  And  that 
physiological  experimenter  who,  defending  the  utility  of 
vi\i.section,  forgets  or  denies  the  existence  of  atrocity,  may 
be  on  dangerous  ground.  Cases  have  been  known  where 
merciless  occupation  has  induced  an  atrophy  of  the  sense  of 
pity ;  and  its  first  symptom  is  unconsciousness  of  cruelty, 
and  blindness  to  abuse. 

II.     But  quite    as    strange   as    any    assertion    in    this 


8 


"  |)hun  statemeut  of  tlic  whole  triilli"  is  the  implied  sugges- 
tion that  abuse  is  impossible  because  everything  is  so  openly 
(lone  !  "  These  loud  outcries  to  put  an  end  to  the  frightful 
scenes  daily  enacted  within  the  open  doors  of  the  most 
enlightened  institutions  of  learning,"  —  surely  there  is  a 
false  impression  conveyed  by  those  words  which  their  writer 
should  hasten  to  correct.  ' '  Within  the  open  doors  !  "  To 
whom  are  the  doors  of  the  physiological  laboratories  open  ? 
Why,  no  feudal  castle  of  the  middle  ages  was  ever  more 
rigidly  guarded  against  the  entrance  of  an  enemy  than  physio- 
logical laboratories  are  secured  against  the  admission  of  un- 
welcome visitors.  To  some  of  the  largest  laboratories  in  the 
United  States,  no  physician  even,  can  gain  entrance  unless 
personally  known.  If  the  Bisiiop  of  Massachusetts  and 
the  editor  of  any  leading  newspaper  in  the  city  were  to 
apply  for  admittance  at  Professor  Porter's  laboratory  during 
a  vivisection,  would  tiie  doors  swing  open  as  to  welcome 
guests  ?  Would  they  be  invited  to  come  again  and  as  often 
as  desired,  without  previous  notification?  I  commend  the 
experiment.  Of  course  a  certain  degree  of  this  seclusion 
is  necessary  and  wise.  That  which  I  criticise  is  the  implied 
denial  that  any  secrecy  exists  and  this  reference  to  "  open 
doors."  And  if  doubt  still  lingers  in  the  minds  of  any  who 
read,  a  conclusive  experiment  will  not  be  difficult  to  make. 
Let  him  but  knock  at  these  ' '  open  doors  "  when  vivisection 
is  going  on. 

III.  We  are  informed,  too,  by  these  scientific  autho- 
rities that  by  so  simple  a  method  as  "a  scratch  on  the  tail 
of  an  etherized  mouse"  and  sul)sequent  treatment,  "the 
priceless  discovery  was  made  which  has  at  length  banished 
tetjanus  from  the  list  of  incurable  disorders."  That  is  an 
unscientific  statement  simply  because  it  is  untrue.  Tetanus, 
or  lockjaw,  was  never  in  "the  list  of  incurable  disorders" 
—  if  uniform  fatalit}'  is  meant ;  and  it  certainly  has  not 
been  taken  out  of  the  list  by  any  "priceless  discovery" 
whatever.  Consult  Aikin,  AVood,  Fagge,  Gross  —  consult 
any  medical  authority  whatever  of  ten  years  ago  —  and  you 
find  the  recoveries  from  tetanus  averaged  at  that  time  from 


ten  to  fifty-eight  per  cent,  of  those  who  were  attacked. 
Now,  what  mighty  change  has  been  wrought  by  the  "  price- 
less discovery  ?  "  Well,  I  take  up  the  London  Lancet  of 
Aug.  10,  1895,  and  I  find  an  English  physician  tracing  "  all 
procurable  published  and  unpublished  cases  of  tetanuh^ 
treated  b}'  anti-toxine,"  and  they  number  just  thirt3^-eight, 
of  which  twenty-five  were  recoveries  and  thirteen  were 
deaths.  I  take  up  the  New  York  Medical  Record  for  Aug. 
24,  1895,  and  I  find  a  correspondent  stating  that  he  "  can 
discover  in  the  recent  medical  literature  but  six  or  seven 
cases  in  all  where  auti-tosine  or  tetauine  has  been  used 
successfully,  and  they  were  all  by  foreigners."  To  call 
that  a  "priceless  discovery,"  which  is  not  in  general  use 
to-day,  which  in  four  years  has  made  no  better  record  than 
this,  and  with  which  the  report  of  hardly  a  single  cure  can 
be  found  in  American  medical  annals  within  the  last  five 
years,  —  \s  that  &  scientific  statement?  Is  it  worthy  of  the 
reputation  of  meu  who  allowed  it  to  go  forth  to  the  world 
backed  by  the  eminence  of  their  names  ? 

IV.  "  It  is  asserted,"  says  Professor  Porter,  "that 
living  animals,  without  narcotics,  helpless  under  the  control 
of  poisons  which,  it  is  alleged,  destroy  the  power  to  move 
while  increasing  the  power  to  suffer,  are  subjected  to  long, 
agonizing  operations,  in  the  hope  of  securing  some  new 
^act,  interesting  to  the  scientific  mind,  but  without  practical 
value."  This  is  one  of  the  most  curious  and  ingenious 
sentences  I  have  ever  read.  Its  inaccuracy  depends  on  only 
two  words,  "without  narcotics."  No  critic  of  vivisection 
ever  made  use  of  those  words  in  any  such  statement ;  and 
I  respectfully  challenge  Professor  Porter  for  reference  or 
quotation.     It  cannot  be  given. 

But,  if  instead  of  the  words  "without  narcotics," 
Professor  Porter  had  written  "without  anaesthetics,"  then 
he  would  have  made  a  precise,  accurate  and  true  statement 
of  what  undoubtedly  has  been  charged.  Could  an}'^  reader 
imagine  that  such  a  charge  was  true,  and  that  it  mio-ht 
exactly  apply  to  some  operations  carried  on  in  the  labora- 
tories of  Harvard  Medical  School  ?     ' '  Helpless  under  the 


10 


control  of  poisons  Avliidi  dc^stiov  the  powei'  1o  inov»\  wliilo 
inoieasinu;  the  power  to  siitfor,"  writ«'s  tlu'  pliysiolo<i;ist,  in 
scHMiiinir  niiKizcMicnt  at  tiip  mendacity  tiiat  conld  coin  sucii  a 
wicked  lie!  Yet  that  statement  is  entirely  tiiie.  'i'iie  Jiame 
of  that  poison  is  eurari  or  woorara ;  the  orthography  is  by 
no  means  fixed.  "■  Woorari,"  says  Dr.  (^tt  (wiio  lias  per- 
sonally made  nse  of  it  in  the  physiological  laboratory  at 
Harvard  ^Medieal  Scliool ),  ''•is  able  to  render  animals  im- 
movable .  .  .  by  IV  i)aralysis  of  the  motor  nerves, 
leaving  .sensory  nerves  intact."  The  properties  of  this  singiihir 
poison  have  been  carefnlly  investigated  by  Claude  Bernard, 
whose  work  on  expeiimental  science  may  be  seen  at  tlie 
Boston  Public  Library.  "  Le  Curare,"  he  says,  "  detruit  le 
mouvement,  en  laissant  persister  la  sensibilite  "  (p.  29.S)  ; 
"•  Curare  destroys  the  power  of  movement,  although  sensi- 
bility persists."  I'nder  tiie  influence  of  this  agent  the  ani- 
mals upon  whicli  tlie  phj^siologist  may  be  working  are 
"exactly  as  if  solidly  fixed  to  the  table,  are  in  truth 
chained  for  hours"  (p.  310).  Does  it  know  what  is  going 
on?  "  When  a  mammal  is  poisoned  by  eurari,  its  intelli- 
gence, sensibility  or  will  i)ower  are  not  affected,  but  they 
lose  the  power  of  moving"  (p.  29fi).  Do  they  suffer?  Is 
it  true,  this  statement  which  Professor  Porter  tells  us  is 
"  asserted,"  but  which  he  does  not  —  except  by  innuendo  — 
deny,  that  animals  are  "helpless  under  control  of  poisons 
which  destroy  the  power  to  move,  while  increasing  the 
power  to  suffer?"  Well,  Claude  Bernard  was  one  of  the 
greatest  phj'siologists  of  this  century,  and  he  shall  tell  us. 
Death  by  curare,  he  says,  although  it  seems  "  si  calme,  et  si 
exempte  de  douleur,  est  au  contraire,  accompagnee  des 
souflfrances  les  plus  atroces  que  1'  imagination  de  1'  homme 
puisse  concevoir," — sufferings  the  most  atrocious  that  the 
imagination  of  man  can  conceive  !  "In  that  corpse  with- 
out movement  and  with  every  appearance  of  death,  sensi- 
bility and  intelligence  exist  without  change.  The  cadaver 
that  one  has  before  him  hears  and  comprehends  ivhat  goes  on 
about  him,  and  feels  ivhatever  painful  impressions  we  may 
inflict."  (p.  291)  Is  an  animal  ever  '•'■  curarized"  in  the 
Harvard  Medical  School?     We  shall  presently  see. 


11 


V.  Throughout  the  entire  manifesto  the  word  ' '  nar- 
cotics "  is  constantly  used  apparently  as  a  synonj^n  for 
*' aniesthetics  ;"  we  read  for  instance  of  "  a  rabbit  narco- 
tized with  chloral,"  a  "  narcotized  dog,"  etc.,  but  not  once  of 
an  "  anesthetized"  animal.  Let  us  see  exactly  what  these 
terms  indicate. 

In  the  physiological  laboratory  five  different  substances 
are  largely  employed  for  producing  certain  effects  in  ani- 
mals used  for  experiment.  Of  curare  I  have  just  spoken. 
Chloroform  and  ether  are  known  as  "anaesthetics;"  that 
is,  agents  which,  pushed  sufficiently  far,  produce  a  degree  of 
the  most  absolute  insensibility  to  pain.  But  the  trouble 
with  these  anesthetics  in  the  laboratory  is  their  liability  to 
cause  the  sudden  death  of  the  animal  experimented  upon ; 
and  this  is  often  most  annoying  and  inconvenient.  The 
temptation  therefore  is  great  to  substitute  for  these  anes- 
thetics certain  "  narcotics  "  which  create  a  degree  of  torpor, 
though  they  do  not  prevent  pain.  Opium  (or  morphia)  and 
chloral  are  the  agents  thus  used.  An  animal  treated  with 
either  may  be  said  to  be  "  narcotized."  But  is  the  creature 
thus  narcotized,  sensitive  to  the  pain  of  cutting,  for  ex- 
ample? Take  opium.  Claude  Bernard,  the  great  French 
physiologist,  asserts  that  sensibility  exists  even  though  the 
animal  be  incapable  of  movement ;  "  il  sent  le  douleur,  mais 
il  a,  pour  ainsi  dire,  perdu  I'idee  de  la  defense  ;  "  he  feels 
the  pain,  but  has  lost,  so  to  speak,  the  idea  of  defending 
himself.  Do  surgeons  use  morphia  to  prevent  the  pain  of 
a  surgical  operation?  Or  take  chloral.  It  is  a  narcotic;  it 
tends  to  produce  sleep.  Is  it  an  anaesthetic?  Dr.  Farqu- 
harson  of  St.  Mary's  Hospital  says  in  his  "Guide  to  Thera- 
peutics "  (p.  195):  "  Eecent  observation  goes  to  show 
that  chloral  is  in  no  sense  a  true  ancestJietic.  .  .  .  Chloral 
having  no  influence  over  sensory  nerves,  has  no  power,  ^^er 
se,  of  allaying  pain."  Dr.  Wood  of  Philadelphia  seems 
disposed  to  think  that  ' '  in  very  large  doses "  chloral  will 
produce  insensibility  to  pain ;  but  he  adds  that  unless  the 
amount  employed  be  so  large  as  to  be  almost  poisonous, 
"  this  anaesthesia  is  in  most  cases  very  trifling." 


12 


For  use  iu  the  phj'siological  laboratory,  the  dose  for  a 
rabbit  is  fifteen  grains,  or  one  gramme.  What  shall  we 
say  of  most  painful  experiments  upon  rabbits,  "lightly 
chloralized  "  with  one-tenth  the  ordinary  dose  ?  Such  inves- 
tigations were  made  by  Professor  Porter  himself,  at  the 
Harvard  Medical  School,  and  within  the  last  two  years. 

VI.  And  this  brings  me  to  a  point  upon  which  I  am 
loth  to  touch,  since  it  would  seem  to  Involve  the  most  posi- 
tive contradiction  of  statements  made  by  scientific  men  of 
the  highest  authority.  Speaking  in  the  plural  number  for 
his  five  associates,  Professor  Porter  has  said  of  vivisections 
causing  pain,  that  "such  investigations  are  rare.  None 
stick  have  been  made  in  the  Harvard  Medical  School  loithin 
our  knowledge."  This  assertion  has  been  widely  copied, 
and  is  almost  universally  believed.  The  Boston  Transcript 
doubtless  echoed  the  sentiment  of  tlie  public  when  it 
declared  in  its  editorial  columns  that  "the  character  and 
standing  of  the  medical  men  whose  names  are  given  as 
responsible  for  this  explanation  to  the  Boston  public  forbid 
any  questioning  of  its  statements  of  facts."  What  is  the 
value  of  authority  if  one  may  assume  to  disbelieve  in  a  case 
like  this?  Here  is  the  assertion  of  six  scientific  teachers. 
For  the  general  public,  nothing  would  seem  to  remain  but 
unquestioning  acceptance,  and  implicit  belief. 

But  a  great  English  thinker  has  said  that  doubt  is  the 
very  foundation  of  science,  since  "  without  doubt,  there  would 
be  no  inquiry,  and  without  inquiry,  no  knowledge."  In  the 
interests  of  scientific  truth,  I  venture  here,  to  suggest  doubt 
rather  than  credulity.  We  have  an  assertion  which  is  either 
true  or  false.  I  doubt  its  truth.  I  affirm  that  evidence 
exists  that  experiments  have  been  made  in  Harvard  Medical 
School  under  the  following  circumstances  : 

1.  Animals  have  been  '■'-  ciirarized"  and  in  that  con- 
dition \a\4sected.  Curare  is  not  an  anaesthetic,  but  simply 
prevents  the  animal  from  moving,  while  remaining  entirely 
sensible  to  pain. 

2.  Animals  have  been  "  very  lightly  narcotized  "  and 
in  that  condition  vivisected.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
animals  "  lightly  chloralized  "  are  insensible  to  pain. 


13 


3.  In  the  majority  of  published  accounts  of  experi- 
ments, there  is  no  mention  whatever  of  anaesthetics  being 
used.  In  a  few  instances  only,  there  is  reference  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  ether  before  the  preliminary  cutting,  often 
followed  later  by  use  of  curare. 

4.  The  majority  of  these  published  investigations,  so 
far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  relate  to  curious  ques- 
tions in  physiology,  and  have  no  perceptible  relation  to  the 
treatment  or  cure  of  human  ailments. 

For  proof  of  these  statements  I  refer  to  the  published 
iiccounts  of  various  experimenters  themselves,  concerning 
their  own  investigations.  Most  of  them  may  be  found  in 
somewhat  rare  volumes  entitled,  "  Collected  Papers, 
Physiological  Laboratory  of  Harvard  Medical  School." 

1.  Dr.  Ott  on  the  Action  of  Lobelina.  "  The 
number  of  my  experiments  was  six,  and  all  were  made  on 
rabbits.  .  .  .  Into  the  left  jugular  had  been  bound  a 
canula,  through  which  the  poison  was  injected  toward  the 
heart.  (Exp.  I.)  As  the  injection  of  the  j^oison  caused 
struggling  .  .  .  I  used  curare  to  paralyze  the  motor 
nerves.  (Exp.  II.)  Rabbit,  curarized,  vagus  irritated. 
(This  experiment  lasted  thirty  minutes.)  From  another 
series,  we  may  quote  the  Exp.  VIII.  Dog  ;  vagi  and  sym- 
pathetics  cut ;   artificial  respiration,  etc. 

"  The  above  experiments  were  made  in  Professor  Bow- 
ditch's  laboratory  at  Harvard  Medical  School."  There  is  no 
mention  of  anaesthetics. 

2.  Dr.  Ott  on  the  Action  of  Thebain.  "In  all 
cases  of  poisoning  by  thebain,  the  functions  of  the  sensory 
nerves  remain  unimpaired  till  death,  as  convulsions  are  al- 
ways excited  by  touch,  up  to  that  period."  (p.  5.)  "  I  have 
made  use  of  the  beautiful  method  of  Brown-Sequard  in  cut- 
ting off  the  action  of  the  poison  on  the  lower  segment  of 
the  spine,"  etc.  "  The  experiments  on  the  circulation 
were  twenty-six  in  number  and  were  made  on  rabbits.  .  .  . 
Artificial  respiration  was  kept  up.  .  .  .  Curare  was 
used."     Dr.  Ott  makes  no  mention  of  anaesthetics. 

"It  is  well  known,"  says  Dr.  Ott,  "  that  the  irritation 


u 


of  a  sensory  nerve  causes  an  excitation  of  the  vaso-iiiotor 
centre,  which  is  indexed  by  a  rise  of  pressure.  The  follow- 
ing experiment  was  made :  Ludwig's  gimlet  electrodes 
were  screwed  into  the  atlas  and  occiputal  bone  (the  skull  of 
a  rabbit)  for  direct  irritation;  vagi  cut;  curare;  sciatic 
nerve  prepared ;  vaso-motor  centre  irritated  through  a 
sensory  nerve  three  seconds ;  directly  irritated  for  eleven 
seconds."  The  entire  experiment  lasted  twenty-five  minutes  ; 
the  pressure  rose  from  150  to  186  and  198.  Dr.  Ott  adds  : 
"  As  indirect  irritation  always  produces  a  rise  of  pressure, 
the  sensory  nerves  and  the  conductors  of  their  impressions 
are  not  paralyzed."  (p.  12.)  AVill  someone  assert  that  this 
was  a  "painless"  experiment?  Where  was  it  done?  "The 
above  experiments  were  mad^  in  the  physiological  laboratory 
of  Professor  Bowditch  at  the  Harvard  Medical  School." 

3.  Dr.  Walton  on  the  Epiglottis.  Case  IX.  "  Dog  ; 
epiglottis  excised ;  watched  six  days ;  coughed  at  almost 
every  attempt  to  eat  or  drink.  Case  X.  Lai-ge  dog  ;  epi- 
glottis excised ;  observed  twenty-one  days  ;  choked  in  swal- 
lowing liquids  and  solids  at  every  trial."  "  The  experi- 
ments were  performed  in  the  laboratory  of  Harvard  Medical 
School."  A  dog,  strangling  in  all  attempts  to  swallow  food 
for  a  period  of  three  weeks  can  hardly  be  said  to  undergo 
"  a  painless  experiment." 

4.  Dr.  Hooper's  Experiments.  "  The  following  ex- 
periment was  made  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  an  upward 
movement  of  the  cricoid  cai'tilage  was  necessarily  associated 
with  increased  capacity  of  the  larynx."  Small  dog ;  cura- 
rized ;  artificial  respiration  ;  pharynx  plugged  ;  a  cord  tied 
around  the  head  and  jaw  in  front  of  the  ears  to  compress  the 
cotton  and  the  passages  leading  upward.  Trachia  divided ; 
a  tubulated  cork  secured  in  upper  end.  "  It  may  be  ques- 
tioned certainly  how  far  an  experiment  of  this  kind  can  be 
applied  to  the  living  human  larynx,  or  with  what  logical  jus- 
tice we  can  draw  conclusions  from  it."  "  The  experiments 
recorded  in  this  paper  were  performed  in  the  physiological 
laboratory  of  Harvard  Medical  School."  Of  another  series 
of  ninety-four  experiments  upon  nine  dififerent  dogs,  it  is 


15 


stated  that  they  were  etherized  "during  the  early  part  of 
the  operation."  If  one  desires  to  see  the  picture  of  a  dog 
"  thoroughly  etherized  or  chloralized,"  fastened  immovabl}", 
its  throat  cut,  and  its  larj-nx  dissected  out  and  tied  up  with 
a  string  —  an  experiment  from  the  phj^siological  laboratory 
of  Harvard  Medical  School  —  let  him  consult  one  of  Dr. 
Hooper's  papers. 

5.  Vaso-motor  Experimexts  upox  Frogs,  by  Dr.  Ellis. 
"All  the  frogs  were  curarizecl.  .  .  .  The  sciatic  nerve 
laid  bare  and  cut  in  the  npper  part  of  the  thigh."  Dr.  Ellis 
tells  us  that  "many  frogs  were  used  ;  "  that  "  different  frogs 
vary  greatly  in  their  susceptibility  to  different  forms  of  elec- 
trical irritation  ;  "  that  "  each  animal  is  a  law  unto  itself ;  " 
that  "  the  individual  peculiarities  of  different  frogs  and  the 
varying  conditions  to  which  they  are  subjected  add  perplex- 
ing elements  to  the  problem  ;  "  that  "  very  delicate  apparatus 
was  employed;"  that  in  some  instances  a  "curious  result 
was  obtained  by  striking  the  abdomen  rapidly  for  a  short 
time,  causing  the  force  of  the  heart-beats  to  much  dimin- 
ish ; "  that  sometimes  the  little  creature's  heart  becomes 
"  enormously  swollen  with  blood,  as  shown  by  the  great  rise 
in  the  lever  ;  "  that  shocks  were  "  given  once  every  second  " 
in  certain  cases,  and  that  "  very  beautiful  records  can  be 
taken."  No  doubt ;  no  doubt.  All  this  may  be  interesting 
to  the  physiologist ;  but  what  practical  results  were  obtained  ? 
"  We  cannot  believe,"  says  the  Harvard  manifesto,  "  that 
such  inquiries  are  ever  taken  without  .  .  .  the  con'\'iction 
that  the  benefit  to  humanity  will  far  outweigh  whatever  suf- 
fering thej^  may  cause  to  the  animals."  These  are  beautiful 
words  !  Let  Dr.  Ellis  state  the  results  of  his  own  experi- 
ments in  his  own  way  :  ' '  The  results  of  our  experiments 
point  to  the  existence  of  a  vaso-dilator  as  well  as  a  vaso- 
constrictor mechanism  in  the  frog!"  That  is  all.  The 
"  benefit  to  humanity  "  was  about  as  much  as  would  come 
from  the  discovery  of  a  silver  mine  in  the  moon. 

6,  Dr.  Bowditch's  Experijiexts  ox  the  Vaso-motor 
Nerves.  "  After  some  preliminary  experiments  on  other 
animals,  it  was  decided  to  employ  cats  in  this  research,  since 


16 


adult  oats  vary  less  than  dogs  in  size,  and  are  much  more 
vigorous  and  tenacious  of  life  tiian  labbits  or  other  animals 
usually  employed  in  physiological  laboratories.  The  latter 
poiiit  Is  One  of  considerable  importance  in  experiments  ex- 
tending ocer  severed  hours.  Tiie  animals  were  ntrarized 
and  kept  alive  by  artificial  respiration,  while  the  pheripheric 
end  of  the  divided  sciatic  nerve  was  stimulated  by  induction 
shocks,  varying  in  intensity  and  frequency.  .  .  .  The 
experiments  were  so  prolonged  that  it  seemed  important  to 
give  to  the  air  thrown  through  the  trachial  canula  into  the 
lungs  a  temperature  as  neai*  as  possible  to  air  re>>pired 
through  the  natural  channel.  ..."  The  cat  to  be  experi- 
mented upon  was  first  etherized  by  being  placed  in  a  bell- 
glass  with  a  sponge  saturated  with  ether,  and  then  secured, 
"  the  head  being  held  in  an  ordinary  Czermak's  rabbit- 
holder.  The  sciatic  nerve  was  then  divided.  In  some  cases 
the  cat  was  allowed  to  recover  from  the  effect  of  the  ether, 
and  the  experiment  postponed  some  days ;  in  others,  a  half- 
per-cent  solution  of  curare  was  put  into  the  circulation  while 
the  animal  was  still  etherized."  (The  effect  of  the  curare 
would  be  to  render  the  animal  motionless,  after  recovery 
from  the  ether ;  it  has  no  other  use.)  In  all,  there  were  909 
obsel•^•ations  made  upon  "  about  seventy  cats."*  In  one  ex- 
periment "  a  tetanic  stimulation  was  applied  for  fifteen  min- 
utes to  the  sciatic  nerve.  The  result  was  a  constriction 
steadily  maintained  during  continuance  of  the  irritation." 
If  there  were  an^'  results  for  ''benefit  of  humanity  "  in  these 
investigations,  they  are  not  recorded.  These  experiments 
were  made  at  Harvard  ]Medical  .School ;  and  I  submit  that 
they  were  by  no  means  "  painless." 

7.  Dr.  Bowditch's  Experiments  on  Nerves.  These 
were  made  u^wn  cats  "in  the  laboratory  of  Harvard 
Medical    School."      "The    animals    were    kept   under   tlie 


*  In  the  Boston  Transcript  of  Feb.  10,  1896,  the  Dean  of  Harvard  Medical 
School  was  reported  as  denying  that  cats  were  used  for  vivisection,  and  as  affirming 
that  although  connected  with  the  School  since  his  graduation  he  had  "never  seen  or 
heard  of  a  cat  being  in  the  building."  It  is  indeed  strange  that  the  fame  of  Dr. 
Bowditch's  researches  upon  these  "  seventy  cats  "  did  not  even  reach  his  associate 
in  the  same  building! 


17 


influence  of  a  dose  of  curare  just  strong  enough  to  prevent 
muscular  contractions ;  while  artificial  respiration  was 
maintained,  and  the  sciatic  nerve  constantly  subjected  to 
stimulation  sufficiently  intense  to  produce  in  unpoisoned 
animals,  a  tetanic  contraction  of  the  muscles.  In  this  way 
it  was  found  that  stimulation  of  a  nerve  lasting  from  one 
a  half  to  four  hours  (the  muscle  being  prevented  from 
contracting  by  curare)  did  not  exhaust  the  nerve."  The 
foregoing  quotation  is  from  an  address  given  before  the 
American  Association  for.  Advancement  of  Science,  August, 
1886  —  nine  years  ago.  If  any  great  "benefit  to  hu- 
manity" has  resulted  from  them,  it  has  not  yet  been  made 
public.     Were  these  experiments  "painless?" 

8.  Dr.  Erxst's  Eesearches  into  Rabies.  In  the 
"  American  Journal  of  Medical  Sciences"  for  April,  1887, 
there  appears  an  account  of  certain  investigations  into 
the  nature  of  rabies  and  hydrophobia,  made  by  Dr.  Harold 
C.  Ernst  of  the  Harvard  Medical  School.  Some  thirty- 
two  rabbits  were  inoculated  with  rabies,  and  all  of  them 
died  of  this  terrible  disease.  Without  touching  upon  the 
question  of  utility  in  this  particular  instance,  I  submit  that 
by  his  own  account  of  these  investigations,  they  were  by 
no  means   "  painless." 

9.  Experiments  of  Prof.  Porter  on  the  Spinal 
Cord.  In  the  "  Journal  of  Physiology"  for  April  6,  1895, 
appears  a  long  and  elaborate  article  on  the  "Path  of  the 
Respiratory  Impulses,"  by  Professor  William  Townsend 
Porter,  of  the  Laboratory  of  Physiology  in  the  Hai-vard 
Medical  School,  the  author  of  the  preceding  manifesto. 
Taken  in  conjunction  with  his  assertion  regarding  painful 
vivisections  that  "none  such  have  been  made  in  Harvard 
Medical  School  within  our  knowledge,"  this  paper  would 
seem  to  offer  a  very  curious  and  significant  illustration  of 
scientific  forgetfulness.  The  object  of  Professor  Porter's 
experiments  was  the  confirmation  of  a  pui'ely  physiological 
hypothesis ;  one  which  had  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
cure  or  treatment  of  human  ills.  His  researches  embraced 
9.t  least  sixty-eight  experiments,  and  full  details  of  fifteen 


18 


are  giveu  in  this  essay.  In  seven  of  these  fifteen  exi)oii- 
ments  —  all  involving  most  painful  mntilations  —  light 
doses  of  morphia  or  chloral  were  administered  instead  of 
aniesthetics  ;  in  one  experiment  the  dose  is  not  given,  and 
in  another  there  is  no  mention  of  any  "  narcotic  "  of  any 
kind.  Even  when  ether  was  given,  it  was  not  as  a  rnh^ 
used  throughout  the  experiment.  Some  examples  will  he  of 
interest ;  the  italics  are  mine. 

''  I  have  separated  the  cord  from  the  l)ullt  in  eight 
rabbits  and  six  dogs,  all  fully  grown.  .  .  .  Artificial 
respiration  was  kept  np  a  long  time.  .  .  .  The  animals 
were  all  yer//  lightly  narcotized.'" 

Exp.  1.  Dec.  19,  1«1)3.  "The  fourth  ventricle  was 
laid  bare  in  a  large,  lightly  chloralized  rabbit,  and  the  floor 
of  the  left  side  of  the  medium  line  burned  away  with  small 
hot  glass  beads.  Respiration  continued  on  both  sides  in 
spite  of  repeated  cauterizations." 

Exp.  II.  Dec.  15,  1893.  "Most  of  the  left  side  of 
the  tloor  of  the  left  ventricle  of  a  rabbit,  lightly  chloralized, 
(not  over  0.1  g.),  was  burned  awa}'."  {This  ^cas  one- 
tenth  the  usual  dose  of  chloral.) 

Exp.  XXIII.  Feb.  27,  1894.  Dog  narcotized  with 
morphia.  Cer\acal  cord  exposed  its  entire  length  ;  severed 
at  the  sixth  cer^^cal  vertebra,  and  the  posterior  roots  of 
the  cer\'ical  nerves  cut.  (An  exceedingly  painful  ex- 
periment.) 

Exp.  LXVI.  Nov.  20,  1894.  Rabbit,  '' lightly  nar- 
cotized with  ether."  Left  phrenic  nerve  "  was  seized  near 
the  first  rib  and  torn  out  of  the  chest."  .  .  .  "I  have 
made  such  experiments  on  thirteen  rabbits  and  one  dog, 
and  the  result  has  ulicays  been  the  same."  A  beautiful 
engraving  gives  the  respiratory  curve  of  this  rabbit,  "the 
left  phrenic  nerve  of  which  had  been  torn  out.  .  .  .  The 
stars  denote  struggling." 

Exp.  LI.  May  3,  1894.  "At  10.30  a  middle-sized 
dog  received  0.2  g.  morphia.  Half  an  hour  later,  the  left 
half  of  the  spinal  cord  was  severed.  .  .  .  Animal  being 
loosed,   showed  a  paralysis  on    the  left   side.     ...    At 


19 


4.30  the  clog  was  bouncl  again  and  the  abdomen  opened," 
Why  was  the  dog  "bound  again?"  No  mention  of 
"narcotic"  or  anaesthetic  during  further  steps  of  the 
experiment. 

Exp.  XXV.  Mar.  3,  1894.  Dog;  given  0.15  grammes 
morphia  sulphate ;  tracheotomized,  spinal  cord  severed 
at  sixth  cervical  vertebra  ;   artificial  respiration. 

Exp.  XLIX.  May  1,  1894.  "At  10  A.  M.  the  left 
side  of  the  spinal  cord  of  a  rabbit,  narcotized  with  ether, 
was  cut.  .  .  .  At^4  P.  M.,  5^  hours  after,  breathing 
was  bilateral.  .  .  .  On  opening  the  abdomen  .  .  . 
diaphragm  was  once  more  exposed  and  cut  in  two 
pieces."  .  .  .  (No  mention  of  anaesthetic  or  narcotic 
during  latter  half  of  experiment,  "  5^  hours  later.") 

Exp.  LII.  May  4,  1894.  Spinal  cord  of  rabbit 
narcotized  with  ether,  cut  on  left  side.  .  .  .  Seven 
hours  later  he  was  in  good  condition  and  kicked  vigorously 
as  he  teas  again  jiut  on  the  board.  The  abdomen  opened  in 
the  median  line  .  .  .  phrenic  nerve  was  now  cut,  etc." 
There  is  no  mention  of  narcotic  or  anaesthetic  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  operation,  "  seven  hours  later"  when  the 
rabbit  "  was  again  put  on  the  board,"  kicking  vigorously, 
to  have  its  abdomen  opened. 

Exp.  LVI.  May  14,  1894.  Rabbit,  etherized  and 
tracheotomized.  Spinal  cord  cut ;  artificial  respiration ; 
"The  narcotic  was  stopped.  On  turning  the  rabbit  and 
opening  the  abdomen,"  etc.  Why  was  not  the  abdomen 
opened  before  ' '  the  narcotic  was  stopped  ?  " 

Exp.  LXI.  Nov.  8,  1894.  The  right  half  of  the  spinal 
cord  of  a  full-grown  rabbit  was  severed  .  .  .  the  phrenic 
nerve  cut  .  .  .  artificial  respiration,  etc."  There  is  no 
mention  whatever  of  either  narcotic  or  anaesthetic  being 
used  in  this  experiment. 

"Other  experiments  could  be  added,  but  they  seem 
unnecessary,"  says  Professor  Porter.     We  agree  with  him. 

There  are  few  laboratories  in  Europe  better  equipped  for 
vivisection  than  the  scene  of  all  these  experiments.  In  one 
of  his  works,  Dr,  Ott  pays  a  tribute  to  the  inventive  genius 


20 


of  Prof.  ITfiiiy  P.  Bowditch  of  Ilnrvard  .Modioal  School, 
who,  it  seems,  has  contrived  a  new  de\'iee  for  holding  ininiov- 
alily  the  head  of  an  animal  to  be  vivisected.  "  It  consists 
of  a  fork-shai)ed  iron  instrument,  the  points  of  the  fork 
united  by  an  iron  bar  ,  .  .  which  is  passed  behind  the 
canines  (teeth)  and  bound  fast  by  a  strong  cord  which  is 
fastened  over  the  jaws.  When  the  iron  rod  is  fastened  to 
the  prongs,  the  handle  is  inserted  into  the  screw-sliding 
points  of  the  upright  rod  of  a  Bernard  holder,"  in  which 
device  certain  straps  prevent  the  dog  "  from  retracting  his 
nose."  But  how  can  a  dog  retract  his  nose  if  insensil)le? 
Wh}'  should  he  wish  to  retract  his  nose  if  he  is  suffering 
nothing?  "I  sometimes  fear,"  said  Dr.  Thcophilus  Parvin 
in  his  address  before  the  A«nerican  Academy  of  Medicine, 
"that  this  anaesthesia  is  frequently  nominal  rather  than 
real ;  else  why  so  many  ingenious  contrivances  for  confining 
the  animal  during  operations,  contrivances  that  are  not 
made  use  of  in  surgical  operations  upon  human  beings  ?  " 

These  were  Boston  vivisections.  They  were  not  done 
thousands  of  miles  away  in  some  distant  European  laboratory, 
but  here  at  home.  Should  they  have  been  left  in  the  quiet 
secrecy  of  phj'siological  literature?  Then  assuredly  their 
existence  ought  not  to  have  been  explicitly  denied. 

What  judgment  are  we  entitled  to  pass  upon  this  mani- 
festo? Was  it,  indeed,  what  it  claimed  to  be — "a  plain 
statement  of  the  whole  truth  ?  " 

No.  A  "  statement  of  the  whole  truth  "  would  not  have 
carefully  mentioned  "a  scratch  of  the  tail  of  an  etherized 
mouse,"  and  made  no  reference  to  other  investigations  of 
infinitely  greater  import  carried  on  in  their  own  laboratory. 
A  statement  of  the  whole  truth  would  not  have  spoken  of 
"  long-drawn  lists  of  atrocities  that  never  existed" — deny- 
ing in  one  sweeping  sentence  some  facts  as  certain  as  any  in 
history.  A  statement  of  the  whole  truth  would  not  have 
referred  to  ' '  narcotics "  as  though  they  were  identical  with 
' '  anaesthetics ;  "  it  would  not  have  left  hidden  the  use  and 
purpose  of  curare;  it  would  not  have  referred  to  "open 
doors,"  when  there  are  no  open  doors ;  it  would  not  hav^ 


21 


proclaimed  to  the  public  as  a  "priceless  discover}^"  for  the 
cure  of  tenanus,  an  agent  of  which  not  five  cases  of 
successful  employment  in  this  country  can  be  found  in  med- 
ical literature.  And  above  all,  a  plain  statement  of  the 
whole  truth  would  never  have  declared  that  no  painful 
vivisection  had  been  made  in  Harvard  Medical  School 
"within  our  knowledge,"  in  the  face  of  the  evidence  I  have 
given  in  this  paper. 

I  am  not  an  anti-vivisectionist,  for  I  believe  in  the 
practice,  when  it  is  rigidly- guarded  against  all  abuses,  limited 
to  useful  ends,  and  subject  to  public  criticism  and  the  super- 
vision of  the  law.  But  I  cannot  believe  that  science  ever 
advances  by  equivocation  or  gains  by  secrecy.  If,  in  the 
opinion  of  scientific  experts,  certain  phases  of  vivisec- 
tion can  only  go  on  by  being  concealed  and  kept  from  the 
world's  judgment  and  criticism,  then  I  fear  the  time  may  come 
when  society  will  question  the  expediency  of  all  such  methods, 
not  because  they  are  invariably  useless,  not  because  they 
are  always  cruel,  but  from  higher  considerations  than  those 
that  affect  man's  relations  to  the  animal  world.  For  science 
can  exist  without  more  vivisection ;  but  there  are  some 
things  -without  which  society  itself  cannot  exist. 


(From  the  Boston  Ei'cniiti^   Traiiscripi^   ynh'  ^J>   ^Scpj.) 


CONCERNING   VIVISECTION. 

BY 

WILLIAM   TOWNSEND    PORTER,    M.D., 

Ass't  Professor  of  Physiology,  Harvard  Medical  School. 


[The  following  statement  is  made  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  H.  P. 
BowDiTCH,  Dr.  W.  T.  Councilman,  Dr.  W.  F.  Whitney,  Dr.  C.  S.  Minot 

AND  Dr.  H.  C.  ERN8T,  PROFESSORS  IN  THE  HARVARI>  MEDICAL  SCHOOL,  IN 
ANSWER  TO  MANY  REQUESTS  FOR  INFORMATION  WITH  REGARD  TO  EXPERI- 
MENTATION ON  LIVING  ANIMALS.]       ' 

Keaders  of  the  dally  prints  are  aware  that  a  few  misinformed  indi- 
viduals are  making  a  persistent  effort  to  bring  about  a  popular  agitation 
against  the  experimentation  on  living  animals.  The  newspaper  letters 
and  Other  communications  put  forth  by  these  persons  dispute  the  neces- 
sity of  vivisection,  aflJrming  that  the  knowledge  secured  by  this  means 
is  not  essential  to  the  progress  of  biologj',  and  therefore  without  substan- 
tial value  for  medicine,  a  department  of  general  biology  on  which  the 
public  welfare  and  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  every  citizen  depend. 

It  is  charged  that  experimental  studies  of  the  functions  of  living 
animals  have  no  purpose  save  the  gratification  of  an  ignoble  ambition, 
or  the  satisfaction  of  an  idle  and  vicious  curiosity.  It  is  asserted  that 
living  animals,  without  narcotics,  helpless  under  the  control  of  poisons 
which,  it  is  alleged,  destroy  the  power  to  move  while  increasing  the 
power  to  suffer,  are  subjected  to  long,  agonizing  operations  In  the  hope 
of  securing  some  new  fact,  interesting  to  the  scientific  mind  but  without 
practical  value.  The  cruelties  practiced  by  vivisectors  are  paraded  in 
long  lists,  with  the  assurance  that  they  are  taken  directly  from  the  pub- 
lished writings  of  the  vivisectors  themselves,  and  distressing  pictures 
are  drawn  of  the  work  of  eminent  professors  in  great  universities.  In 
short,  an  organized  effort  is  making  to  persuade  the  uninformed  that 
men  who  spend  their  lives  in  laying  the  broad  and  deep  foundations  on 
which  alone  a  rational  medicine  can  rest  are  wanting  in  common  human- 
ity, and  that  the  medical  profession,  whose  work  it  is  to  lessen  the  suf- 
fering in  the  world,  looks  with  indifference  on  useless  and  truly  revolting 
cruelties  done  before  its  very  eyes.* 

It  is  true  that  the  evident  exaggeration  of  these  charges  will  alone 
discredit  them  with  manj'  who  have  no  special  knowledge  of  the  pro- 
cedures so  fiercely  attacked,  and  who  therefore  cannot  perceive  that  the 
weapons  of  these  agitators  are  garbled  facts,  downright  perversions,  and  mix- 
leading  excerpts  from  professional  writings  beyond  the  comprehension  of 
the  untrained.    It  is  true  that  the  public  mind  will  hardly  be  persuaded 


*The  italics  in  this  paper  are  not  in  the  original.  They  are  herein  employed  not 
for  emphasis,  but  merely  to  indicate  certain  inaccurate  affirmations  or  suggestions, 
to  which  the  especial  attention  of  the  reader  is  directed. 


23 


that  teachers  in  medicine  have  less  mercy  towanls  dumb  animals  than 
men  of  other  callings.  And  yet  these  reiterated  charges  of  cruelty, 
these  long  draiun  lists  of  atrocities  that  never  existed,  these  loud  outcries  to 
put  an  end  to  the  ffight/ul  scenes  daily  enacted  ivitbin  the  open  doors  of  the 
most  enlightened  seats  of  learning,  Sihsurd  though  they  be,  do  positive  harm. 
The  least  of  the  evil  that  they  do  is  that  they  publicly  attack  the  char- 
acter of  investigators  and  teachers  in  the  medical  profession;  the  great- 
est, that  they  seek  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  learning,  and  to  make 
impossible  that  patient  search  for  fundamental  truths  which  has  raised 
medicines  from  the  slough  of  empiricism  to  the  level  of  an  applied 
science.    It  is  the  duty  of  medical  men  to  meet  these  mischievous  attacks 

by  A  PLAIN    STATEMENT  OF  THE  WHOLE  TRUTH. 

Experiments  on  living  animals  may  be  divided  into  three  classes.  In 
the  first  class  may  be  placed  those  experiments  in  which  the  animal  is 
narcotized  before  the  operation  Is  begun  and  is  killed  while  still  insen- 
sible to  pain.  This  class  includes  almost  all  vivisections  in  physiology, 
i.  e.,  almost  all  experiments  which  determine  directly  the  functions  of 
living  organs,  and  almost  all  pharmacological  experiments,  those  which 
determine  the  action  of  remedies  on  living  organs.  An  example  is  the 
cutting  of  the  pneumogastric  nerve  in  the  rabbit,  fully  narcotized  with 
chloral,  in  order  that  the  action  of  this  nerve  upon  the  respiration  raay 
be  studied. 

The  second  class  consists  of  experiments  in  which  the  operation  is 
made  during  full  unconsciousness  and  the  animal  then  allowed  to  re- 
cover. The  following  illustrations  will  make  plain  the  purpose  of  such 
work.  In  a  narcotized  dog  an  opening  is  made  through  the  abdominal 
walls  into  the  stomach  and  a  short  silver  tube  inserted.  The  narcotic  is 
stopped.  In  a  few  days  the  wound  heals  completely.  The  pain  of  the 
wound  is  usually  so  slight  that  even  the  appetite  of  the  dog  is  not  affect- 
ed. Very  exceptionally  the  wound  takes  an  unfavorable  course.  In  such 
cases,  the  dog,  if  seen  to  be  suffering,  is  killed.  This  opening  into  the 
stomach  enables  the  physiologist  to  determine  with  much  accuracy 
the  digestibility  of  foods,  the  nature  and  the  amount  of  absorption  from 
the  stomach,  the  length  of  time  that  food  remains  in  this  organ,  the 
effect  of  remedies  upon  its  functions,  and  many  other  matters  of  the 
first  importance.  A  second  illustration  is  found  in  the  experiments  of 
the  pathologist.  A  narcotized  rabbit  is  inoculated  with  the  virus  of 
hydrophobia  and  the  symptoms  of  the  disease  thus  induced  are  carefully 
noted.  The  knowledge  thus  secured  enables  the  pathologist  to  decide 
whether  a  dog  which  has  been  killed  after  biting  several  persons  in  a 
paroxysm  of  supposed  madness  was  really  rabid.  If  the  dog  was  mad 
indeed,  the  inoculation  of  an  animal  with  a  small  portion  of  the  dog's 
spinal  cord  brings  on  the  previously  determined  characteristic  symp- 
toms of  the  disease.  The  fact  of  rabies  is  thus  made  certain,  and  there 
is  still  time,  so  slowly  does  the  rabies  develop  in  the  human  species,  to 
save  the  lives  of  the  bitten  persons  by  inoculation  with  the  attenuated 
virus.  Yet  another  illustration.  The  bacteriologist  makes  a  scratch  in  the 
tail  of  an  etherized  mouse,  touches  the  scratch  with  a  wire  covered  with  the 
germs  of  tetanus  (lockjaw),  and  learns  the  course  of  the  disease  in  this 
animal.  He  then  endeavors,  by  the  injection  of  various  substances,  to 
arrest  the  fatal  march  of  the  disease.  It  was  in  this  way  that  the  pWce- 
less  discovery  was  made  which  has  at  length  banished  tetanus  from  the  list  of  in- 
curable disorders. 

The  third  class  of  vivisections  is  that  in  which  no  narcotic  is  given. 
Many  operations  require  no  auEesthetic  because  they  inflict  little  or  no 
pain.  An  example  is  the  injection  of  diphtheria  toxine  into  horses,  in 
order  that  the  serum  of  their  blood  may  be  used  to  destroy  the  diph- 


u 


theria  bacillus  in  tbe  very  tissues  of  the  sick.  Other  operations  of  this 
c\&9S  do  cause  pain.  Painful  vivisections,  when  made  at  all,  are  made  for 
the  sake  of  determining  functions  that  are  temporarily  suspended  by 
narcotics.  Here  truth  is  gained  at  the  expense  of  suffering  because  there 
is  no  other  way.  Such  itirestigations  are  rare.  Xone  such,  have  been  made  in 
the  Harvard  Medical  School  toithin  our  knotcledge.  We  cannot  believe  that 
such  inquiries  are  ever  undertaken  in  any  university  without  the  most 
careful  consideration  of  their  probable  value  and  the  conviction  thattbe 
benefit  to  humanity  will  far  outweigh  whatever  suffering  they  may 
cause  to  the  animals  employed. 

It  Is  asserted  that  vivisection  is  not  necessary.  This  we  deny.  Vivi- 
section is  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  two  incontrovertible  proposi- 
tions: the  flrst,  that  there  can  be  no  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
whole  without  adequate  knowledge  of  the  parts  which  compose 
the  whole;  the  second,  that  the  functions  of  the  complex  organs 
which  compose  the  higher  vertebrate,  cannot  be  clearly  made  out 
by  the  study  of  dead  organs  or  by  the  observation  of  the  non-vivi- 
sected animal.  It  would  be  easier  to  create  the  science  of  strategy  from 
observations  on  dead  soldiers  than  to  reproduce  the  present  knowledge 
concerning  the  circulation  of  the  blood  from  a  study  of  the  dead  blood- 
vessels. Whole  series  of  phenomena  are  hidden  alike  from  the  student 
of  lifeless  tissues  and  from  the  outside  investigator  who  confines  him- 
self to  man  or  the  non-vivisected  animal.  Thus,  the  work  done  by  every 
organ  in  the  body  depends  on  the  quantity  of  blood  with  which  it  is  sup- 
plied, and  this  depends,  other  things  being  equal,  on  the  pressure  of  the 
blood  within  the  arteries.  No  means  exist  of  measuring  accurately  the 
pressure  of  the  blood  in  men  or  non-vivisected  animals.  Only  when  the 
measuring  apparatus  is  connected  directly  with  the  blood-vessels  of  the 
living  animal  can  any  certain  knowledge  concerning  one  of  the  most 
important  factors  in  the  life  of  the  organism  be  secured.  So  the  funda- 
mental problem  of  the  distribution  of  the  blood  can  be  solved  only  by 
vivisection. 

Instances  of  the  practical  value  of  the  knowledge  gained  by  vivi- 
section are  almost  numberless.  The  discovery  of  the  restraining  action 
of  the  pneumogastric  nerve  upon  the  heart  disclosed  a  previously  un- 
suspected attribute  of  nervous  tissue,  threw  a  searching  light  far  into  the 
gloom  and  still  enshrouds  the  higher  functions  of  the  brain,  and  left  an 
ineffaceable  mark  on  practical  medicine.  This  discovery  was  solely  the  fruit 
of  vivisection.  It  is  now  but  twenty-live  years  since  the  physiologist 
Hitzlg  stimulated  certain  areas  on  the  exposed  brain  of  a  narcotized  dog 
and  observed  that  each  stimulus  caused  a  particular  group  of  muscles  to 
contract.  This  experiment  has  given  a  mighty  impulse  to  the  diagnosis  of 
cerebral  disease,  has  opened  the  almost  superstitiously  dreaded  brain 
to  the  surgeon's  knife,  and  has  rescued  many  who  once  were  thought 
beyond  the  reach  of  art.* 


*The  latest  statistics  regarding  brain-Surgery  are  of  interest  to  the  medical 
profession.  In  an  address  before  the  New  York  State  Medical  Society,  January 
!i9,  1896,  Dr.  M.  Allen  Starr  gives  the  results  of  operations  for  brain  tumor 
so  far  as  recorded  in  the  medical  literature  of  this  country  and  Europe  up 
to  January  1,  1896.  There  have  been,  it  seems,  16"-  cases  operated  upon,  in  72  of 
which  the  tumor  was  removed,  and  the  patient  recovered.  In  90  other  cases  the 
tumor  was  either  not  found  or  the  operation  was  a  failure.  Dr.  Starr  points  out 
that  only  about  one  case  in  fourteen  is  open  to  operation;  and  with  the  final 
result  of  operations  for  the  cure  of  epilepsy,  about  which  we  heard  so  much  a 
short  time  ago,  he  is  "  exceedingly  disappointed." 


25 


It  is  not  to  be  disputed  that  the  certain  cure  of  any  sick  man  depends 
on  the  accurate  determination  of  his  disease.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
a  clear  conception  of  the  normal  functions  of  a  part  is  the  necessary 
basis  for  the  recognition  of  the  abnormality  of  function  which  consti- 
tutes disease.  It  follows  that  the  cure  of  disease  must  be  founded  on  the 
knowledge  of  the  normal  functions  of  the  body.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
that  this  knowledge  has  been  gained  and  must  continue  to  be  gained 
largely  from  experiments  on  living  animals.  Vivisection  is  therefore  an 
indispensable  aid  to  the  practice  of  medicine  and  the  progress  of  medi- 
cal science  and  an  indispensable  agent  in  the  preservation  of  the  public 
health. 

Cruelty  is  the  intentional  infliction  of  unnecessary  pain.  By  far  the 
greater  number  of  vivisections  cause  no  real  suffering,  because  the 
animals  employed  are  made  insensible  to  pain.  The  occasional  vivi- 
sections in  which  narcotics  are  not  used  because  they  temporarily  sus- 
pend the  functions  to  be  studied  are  not  cruel.  The  pain  they  inflict  is 
necessary  to  the  better  knowledge  of  the  functions  of  the  body  and 
necessary  therefore  to  the  better  preservation  of  the  lives  of  men  and 
of  domestic  animals.  Countless  multitudes  of  animals  are  slaughtered 
daily,  without  narcotics,  to  furnish  food.  This  is  not  thought  cruel. 
Other  animals  are  mercilessly  hunted  down  because  their  furs  keep  off 
the  cold.  Even  this  is  not  thought  cruel.  Yet  the  prof  essional  scientist, 
highly  educated,  carefully  trained,  laboring  with  small  material  reward 
for  the  advancement  of  learning  and  the  public  good,  is  held  up  to  pub- 
lic condemnation,  because,  in  the  pursuit  of  those  truths  which  underlie 
the  successful  fight  against  disease,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  study  the 
functions  of  unconscious  animals  and  very,  very  rarely  to  perform 
operations  in  which  suffering  cannot  wholly  be  avoided. 

The  statutes  of  the  Commonwealth  prescribe  the  penalties  to  be  in- 
flicted on  those  found  guilty  of  cruelty  to  animals,  and  on  those  who 
seek  to  disturb  their  fellow-citizens  in  the  pursuit  of  their  lawful  occupa- 
tions. The  physiologist  and  the  pathologist  take  their  stand  within  the 
common  law,  ready  at  any  time  to  submit  to  the  impartial  verdict  of 
competent  judges  the  method  by  which  they  endeavor  to  teach  and  to 
advance  the  science  and  the  art  of  medicine. 

Boston,  July  12, 1S95. 


T/te  foreffoing  article  is  reprinted  in  full  that 
readers  of  the  paper  vjhick  precedes  it  may  verify  its 
quotations . 


EXT&ACT   FROM  THE  ANXUAL  ADDRESS 

BEAD  .TCNE  7,  1871,   BEFORE 

The  Massachusetts  Medical  Society, 


HENRY    ,1.    HIGELOAY,    M.  D., 

PROFESSOR   OF  SURGERY    IN    HARVARD   UNIVERSITY. 

"  How  few  facts  of  immediate  considei'able  value  to  our  race  have  of 
late  years  been  extorted  from  the  dreadful  sufferings  of  dumb  animals, 
the  cold-blooded  cruelties  now  more  and  more  practiced  under  the 
authority  of  science! 

The  horrors  of  Vivisection  have  supplanted  the  solemnity,  the  thrill 
ing  fascination,  of  the  old  unetherized  operation  upon  the  human 
sufferer.  Their  recorded  phenomena,  stored  away  by  the  physiological 
inquisitor  on  dusty  shelves,  are  mostly  of  as  little  present  value  to  man 
as  the  knowledge  of  a  new  comet,  .  .  .  contemptible,  compared  with 
the  price  paid  for  it  in  agopy  and  torture. 

For  every  inch  cut  by  one  of  these  experimenters  in  the  quivering 
tissues  of  the  helpless  dog  or  rabbit  or  Guinea-pig,  let  him  Insert  a 
lancet  one-eighth  of  an  inch  into  his  own  skin,  and  for  every  inch  more 
he  cuts  let  him  advance  the  lancet  another  eighth  of  an  inch,  and 
whenever  he  seizes,  with  ragged  forceps,  a  nerve  or  spinal  marrow,  the 
seat  of  all  that  is  concentrated  and  exquisite  in  agony,  or  literally  tears 
out  nerves  by  their  roots,  let  him  cut  only  one-eighth  of  an  inch 
further,  and  he  may  have  some  faint  suggestion  of  the  atrocity  he  la 
perpetrating  when  the  Guinea-pig  shrieks,  the  poor  dog  yells,  the  noble 
horse  groans  and  strains  — the  heartless  vivisector  perhaps  resenting 
the  struggle  which  annoys  him.    .    .    . 

If  a  skillfully  constructed  hypothesis  could  be  elaborated  up  to  the 
point  of  experimental  test  by  the  most  accomplished  and  successful 
philosopher,  and  if  then  a  single  experiment,  though  cruel,  would 
forever  settle  it,  we  might  reluctantly  admit  that  it  was  justified.  But 
the  instincts  of  our  common  humanity  indignantly  remonstrate  against 
the  testing  of  clumsy  or  unimportant  hypotheses  by  prodigal  experi- 
mentation, or  making  the  torture  of  animals  an  exhibition  to  enlarge 
a  Medical  School,  or  for  the  entertainment  of  students,  not  one  in  fifty 
of  whom  can  turn  it  to  any  profitable  account.  The  limit  of  such 
physiological  experiment,  in  its  utmost  latitude,  should  be  to  establish 
truth  in  the  hands  of  a  skillful  experimenter,  with  the  greatest  economy 
of  suffering,  and  not  to  demonstrate  it  to  ignorant  classes  and  encourage 
them  to  repeat  it. 

The  reaction  which  follows  every  excess  will  in  time  bear  Indig- 
nantly upon  this.  Until  then  it  is  dreadful  to  think  how  many  poor 
animals  will  be  subjected  to  excruciating  agony  as  one  Medical  College 
after  another  becomes  penetrated  with  the  idea  that  vivisection  is  a  part 
of  modern  teaching,  and  that,  to  hold  way  with  other  institutions,  they, 
too,  must  have  their  vivisector,  their  mutilated  dogs,  their  Guinea-pigs, 
their  rabbits,  their  chamber  of  torture  and  of  horrors,  to  advertise  as 
a  laboratory." 


Copies  of  thispgtffTilft  m"^,  "belicNi.through  the  address  below. 
Price,  sixy^njl^^i^k^ post^pktc^t^teK.  copies  for  Jifty  cents. 

Providence,  R.  I. 


UistgmplU(t  »<y.  be  naii..tlirough  , 
^MjA^i^l'fflDshpiti^im^  tfH.  copi 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  ^ '''"'"  ~".       ^" — '"•'l  arrangement  with 

the  1 '' 


se,  N.Y. 
■n.  Calif. 


DATE  DUE 

•    W^v  ^ 

rm  .^a 

'  *-  ^    I'shj^w 

^5                                      l?% 

